o
Meta.fields not existing results in all model fields, but this would be an
explicit step.
Gary
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
To unsubs
targeted for improvement (e.g. components with high defect
counts and densities, docstrings and source comments).
Thanks,
Gary
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@go
27;ve actually swapped out the model, of course). In this
scenario, app authors would still need to go explicitly make their
models swappable, but wouldn't need to make any further changes if the
swappable parameter default were to change.
Thoughts?
Gary
--
You received t
jangoproject.com/changeset/6991
https://code.djangoproject.com/changeset/7950
https://code.djangoproject.com/changeset/12156
https://code.djangoproject.com/changeset/12170
https://code.djangoproject.com/changeset/13670
Gary
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google G
See the wiki page for more details and to sign up:
http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/Sprint2011JanAustin
Gary
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegrou
Have you setup a paypal test site? This is required. Satchmo pretty
much needs nothing to work with Paypal.
Just set it up and activate. But the Paypal account is required and a
sandbox account, to test, also needs to be created. Have you done that?
Gary Bernard
Bernard Design
232 E 33rd
I suspect we're heading into django-users territory already.
Cheers,
Gary
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Matt Hoskins wrote:
> My use case is that I want to have a BooleanField on the model and on
> the form want to have the choices of "Unknown", "Yes" and &qu
You could always use a proxy model instead of monkey patching.
class MyUser(User):
class Meta:
proxy = True
ordering = ('first_name', 'last_name')
def __unicode__(self):
return self.get_full_name()
Then in any models you define a FK to User, just FK to MyUser instead.
On Fri, May
yes ...sorry. saw that after I posted...
Gary Bernard
Bernard Design
232 E 33rd Place
Tulsa, OK 74105
918-629-1932
918-749-0075 (fax - please call first)
g...@bernarddesign.com
http://bernarddesign.com
On Apr 28, 2010, at 9:38 AM, Karen Tracey wrote:
The topic of this list is the
I am having trouble being able to get format or input_format to work
properly on a form TimeField/TimeInput and wanted to check to see if
anyone has ever come across this. I have a form built using ModelForm
which has a class_time field. I am trying to allow entries into the
timefield such as 4 p.m
I really don't see how your YAML file is any more maintainable than Django's
settings.py approach? If anything, I would argue that it is less
maintainable, as you would have to maintain not only your YAML files moving
forward, but also the code which transposes it into a settings.py.
On Wed, Mar 1
That's interesting, I'm of the other belief... I find the Django
documentation to be thorough and organised very well.
One of the main reasons I (and I am sure countless others) even started
using Django was because of it's excellent documentation.
As the project has matured from version 0.96 onw
There is already a ticket for this (and possibly others).
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/11244#comment:4
It has been closed and marked wontfix, see the comments for why.
On 15 Feb 2010, at 21:53, orokusaki wrote:
Please visit the following URL, and when you do, put your focus into
the
her than a
DoesNotExist as a result of a lookup?
It's clearly a design decision. You are free to disagree with that decision,
but it's not a bug - it's behaving as designed (and documented).
Gary
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Dj
me; lesson learned.
Personally, I'd use this as an opportunity to find a more robust way
> of getting that information to the template tag :-)
>
Fair call! I'll plug away at that and if I have any more questions I'll move
my questioning over to django-users.
Thanks,
Gary
--
`", in step 2 above. If these
characters are found but are not converted, then the conversion SHOULD
fail. Please note that the number sign ("#"), the percent sign ("%"),
and the square bracket characters ("[", "]") are not part of the above
list and
gnup is here:
http://socghop.appspot.com/mentor/request/google/gsoc2009/django
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-d
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Malcolm Tredinnick
wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 12:12 -0500, Gary Wilson Jr. wrote:
>> Another option would be to allow Model.update() to take the
>> force_update and force_insert parameters that save() does and just
>> pass these throu
pdate=True should also be
used.
Another option would be to allow Model.update() to take the
force_update and force_insert parameters that save() does and just
pass these through to the save() call.
What do you think?
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this me
iting in some separation there in general and
> the current stuff you've got looks very clear (I understood it).
Looking, at what's currently in each I can see how this might be a
better fit for howto. I'll move it, Jacob.
> Good stuff.
Many thanks are in order to those wh
Just posted an updated patch:
http://code.djangoproject.com/attachment/ticket/689/689.4.diff
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, sen
e LazyUser object created by the
AuthenticationMiddleware. This causes both an access to the session
(causing #6552 - Vary: Cookie [1]) and an extra query on every request
to grab the user.
What are the other issues?
Gary
[1] http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6552
--~--~-~--~~--
with the other planned features. Those needing to stay on
Python 2.3 could just keep to 1.0.x, not unreasonable if you ask me.
Also, 1.1 is still four months away and 1.0.x will be receiving bug
fixes until then, so Python 2.3 users wouldn't be completely left in
the dark.
Gar
Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> [If you happen to be at OSCON I'll be working on 1.0 alpha on the
> lower floor over by the Starbucks if you wanna come over and help
> out.]
I'm not at OSCON, but I can take care of #7864 (docs renaming), as I've
got a patch alr
that factored out some
duplicate code and added a few more tests.
Gary
[1] http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/3639
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to
1061 and #3011. Even if these sorts of features have a patch and are
"Ready for checkin," that does not mean they get a 1.0 milestone. They
still take core developer time to review and commit, time that also
needs to be focused on higher priority tickets.
Thanks,
Gary
--~--~--
Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> Help me out here: how can I make it more obvious?
Wow, you've certainly made it more obvious :) I pity the fool that
misses it now.
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Googl
et, no confusion as
to which Paginator class to use, and the ability to accept any other
"object_list" instance that has a count() method or can have len()
called on it.
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed
o
> poke views, so there isn't a huge need for a doctest analog, but the
> calls made by TestCase.setup/teardown could be abstracted into
> test.utils.
Swapping the root URLconf works, and is currently what contrib.formtools
is doing. Is your thinking that if a ``urls`` attribute is defined
Along with a ticket and patch, it would
be nice to see what nfa's dispatching looks like with the changes. If
you feel like it, please put those changes in the patch as well or
attach a separate patch.
Thanks,
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this mess
Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Gary Wilson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> a. I am thinking that we should instead keep the ``model`` argument,
>> but make it optional. Then, we ensure that one of ``model`` or
>> ``form_class`` is given
uld have known that
before I did it :)
Gary
[1]
http://samba.org/~jelmer/bzr-svn/FAQ.html#bzr-svn-sets-all-kinds-of-file-properties-when-pushing-revisions-into-subversion-is-this-really-necessary
[2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/bzr-svn/+bug/174690
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~---
ustom_save_article test with a
custom_create view that passes a custom form to the create_update
generic view.
I have attached my patch [4] to the ticket.
Gary
[1]
http://code.djangoproject.com/attachment/ticket/3639/create_update_newforms5.diff
[2] http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/NewAdminChanges
[3]
;.
Agreed, please create a ticket for this.
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe
do while working on aggregates but I'd like to know the
> feeling
> of the comunity on this.
Patches welcome, and please file a ticket so this bug is not forgotten.
Thanks,
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribe
_key('somekey') and dict.somekey`` --
> this is good.
I also agree that, in many instances, tags should fail loudly, and that
these types of failures need to be looked at on a tag by tag basis. The
question then becomes, do we want to always raise these exceptions or do
we want to
aim, and it gathers
100 to 300 fields through a 'wizard'-style interface.
It's running on the Google App Engine, so it's using Django templates
but, of course, uses the Google datastore.
If you can spare the time, please take a look at it and send me any
comments.
Should I be lo
odel.objects.values('field1', 'field2', exclude_fields=[...], type=...)
Has a discussion of something like the "type" keyword argument been
brought up before? The only two threads [1][2] I found about
valuelist() and value_list() don't mention the idea.
Gary
[1
Alex Koshelev wrote:
> No. Not `tests.py`, but `tests` module - that can be a package of many
> other modules/files
In case you haven't figured this out already, it can be done by
importing your unit test classes from the test/*.py modules in
tests/__init
ds something like #5420 rather than changing what
values() returns.
And, if you would rather be explicit in the positive tone, then maybe a
show() method to complement the hide() would satisfy you.
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are s
.com/query
Thanks,
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, se
suggests an additive behavior similar to the way filter()
operates. However, there is also the option of a "last one wins" approach, as
seen by the order_by() method (on trunk, is it the same in qs-rf?):
>>> User.objects.order_by('last_name')._order_by
('last_name
feature won't have to write their own library, they
can use the existing one.
There are several great Django projects out there that started with one or
more people getting together to solve a common problem. Is Django wrong for
not including them in it's codebase? Certainly not
). Personally, I'd rather do the former, but I'm probably in
> the minority there.
I'm with you on keeping them side-by-side and then removing the
manipulator-based views when we take out oldforms.
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this mess
nds like a decent idea to me, but you should really file a ticket for this
so it won't be forgotten. Attaching your patch to the ticket would be a good
idea too.
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Googl
y fixture.
It looks like this change would be backwards-compatible because
django.dispatch.robustapply.robustApply checks to see what arguments and
keyword arguments the receiver accepts and only calls the receiver with
those arguments.
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Karen Tracey wrote:
> Can't answer as to why it is the way it is, but Gary did open a defect to
> track the issue, and it has a patch:
>
> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6094
>
> Someone else a couple of weeks ago opened another couple of defects covering
>
SmileyChris wrote:
> I've been working on a new version of the session messages ticket and
> was looking at making the "messages" context variable lazy - it seems
> silly how it currently wipes messages, even if you didn't check for
> them.
What ticket number is this btw?
--~--~-~--~
Peter Baumgartner wrote:
> http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/3511 broke some code I had that
> caught AssertionError in the past. Seems like it should be listed on
> http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/BackwardsIncompatibleChanges
done.
Tha
name in front of it, like "myblogapp/base.html". The
"myblogapp/templates" directory should not be looked at in any other case, and
only global template directories are looked at every time by the filesystem
template loader.
This should also work with custom app_nami
quest-handling
exceptions or not.
* Added tests for making sure that exceptions raised in various middleware
are handled properly.
* Added tests to test that the correct exceptions bubble up from middleware
with errors.
It needs some eyes and some testing.
Thanks,
Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> On Dec 4, 2007 12:57 AM, Gary Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But what would the situation be with a new limit() method...
>>
>> objects = MyModel.objects.filter(site=1)
>> first_one = objects.limit(1)
>> do_something_special(
Luke Plant wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 December 2007 07:25:31 Gary Wilson wrote:
>
>> Sort of my point. Since filter() and [:] both return QuerySets why
>> should they be any different:
>>
>> UTPerson.objects.all().filter(name__startswith='a')[:10]
>
&g
Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> Anybody have strong objections to ticket #5524: not completely nuking
> form.cleaned_data is a form instance has any non-zero validation errors?
No objections here, seems like the Right Thing to do. My data was cleaned,
keep it that way.
bit contrived; but think along the lines of if I had a
view that got passed the limited QuerySet as a parameter.
def view1(request):
view2(request, queryset=Model.objects.all()[:10])
def view2(request, queryset):
render_to_response('t.html', {'items': queryset.filter(...)})
It is recommended to evaluate a QuerySet by calling list() on it. Problem is,
now you have a list and not a QuerySet. Just thinking it might be nice to
have an evaluate() method that would return a QuerySet object with the result
cache filled.
Now, if only I could think of a use case ;)
Gary
the QuerySet hasn't been
evaluated yet.
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscr
ers me.
>
> I'm still +1 on fixing this wart, but it won't be the end of the world
> if nobody agrees with me. I just want folks to understand my
> reasoning.
I wouldn't be against adding limit() and offset() to _complement_ the existing
slicing capability. So call me +0 fo
Should we change to DeprecationWarning now and remove it before the release or
just axe it all now?
> And, finally, a bit of a controversial statement, but...
>
> I think we ought to call the release 2.0.
"The birth of Django"
1.910
Gary
--~--~-~--~~--
n the WSGIHandler/ModPythonHandler and
WSGIRequest/ModPythonRequest classes.
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to dj
nts to make
the derivative work available to others as provided herein, then
Licensee hereby agrees to include in any such work a brief summary of
the changes made to Python.
"""
So it seems as if we need to put the PSF copyright in the file, distribute a
copy of the License Agree
s? Correct me
> if I'm wrong, please.
You are not alone in your thinking. See the latest django-dev thread on
this issue:
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_frm/thread/d52d9882db719266/
FYI, the ticket on this is here:
http://code.djang
Gary Wilson wrote:
> Is there a reason why setup_environ adds the parent directory of the project
> directory to the path, imports the project module, and then removes the parent
> directory from the path? The imported project module is also not used
> afterwards.
Adrian,
#x27;s a bit different in that the data is not stored in the same
table as the other fields).
As far as AutomaticManipulator.save(), it appears that there is follow and
edit_inline logic mixed in with the manytomany saving. Does anyone who is
more familiar with newfo
o_test_app ...]
and so on.
Without a --settings option, settings.py is looked for in the current directory.
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post
James Bennett wrote:
> On 11/13/07, Gary Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How about introducing pre_save and/or post_save methods. The signal firing
>> happens in pre_save and post_save. You can override whatever you want -
>> pre_save, save, or post_save dep
;-)
How about introducing pre_save and/or post_save methods. The signal firing
happens in pre_save and post_save. You can override whatever you want -
pre_save, save, or post_save depending on your needs. This would also allow
you to disable the firing of signals by overriding pre/post_save
k.
The csrf middleware components could be factored out for use in both the forms
and in the middleware.
Thoughts?
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to
n checking methods into an ObjectWithPermissions class that
could be used as a mixin. Or possibly even using composition with something
like:
class User(models.Model):
permissions = DatabasePermissions()
Gary
[1] http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/3011
--~--~-~--~~---
messages [1] too)
>
> [1] http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/4604
Makes sense to me. Also, see this thread for a previous discussion that
popped up about this very issue:
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_frm/thread
red at /admin/
> Module "django.template.loaders.filesystem" does not define a
> "load_template_souuntitled folderrce" callable template source loader
It appears that an inadvertent "untitled folder" string got pasted into your
settings.py file for the TEMPLATE_LOADERS setting.
Gary
Is there a reason why setup_environ adds the parent directory of the project
directory to the path, imports the project module, and then removes the parent
directory from the path? The imported project module is also not used
afterwards.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
_model as
> flexible as possible.
I would put myself in this boat as well. +1
> 'exclude_fields' seems like a good move in that
> direction.
Excluding fields is probably the most common thing I do to customize forms.
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Y
e the places
in the code that are expecting copy() to return a deepcopy.
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@goog
et/6425
Thanks for the notice.
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from
6391 break anybody's setup?
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this gr
ill
be discussed and fixed in a timely manner. I don't see an issue if a branch
is broken for a week here and there, especially after the code frenzy that was
last weekend.
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
version control system that supports easy
branching and easy merging. I have tons of branches that I manage this way:
http://gdub.wordpress.com/2007/01/11/hacking-django-how-bazaar/
Keeping my patches up to date has been a breeze ever since.
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~--
27;author': 1})
MyModel.objects.get_or_create(..., defaults={'author': '1'})
And they would work if django.db.models.base.Model.__init__ is fixed as
mentioned above with create().
--
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this mes
/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/685c52d252173bf4/
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegro
Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> On 9/5/07, Gary Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Gary Wilson wrote:
>>> Russell then added the comments:
>>> -
>>> My hesitation here (and the reason I didn't include a 'context assert' in
>
Marty Alchin wrote:
> So, just so I'm clear, is this for everybody, or just the core
> developers? For instance, I'm actively maintaining the new filestorage
> mechanism for the time being, so should I accept that as my own?
Every
On Sep 5, 3:32 pm, "Adrian Holovaty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I propose Friday, September 14. Some reasoning:
Count me in. Maybe even some spillover into the weekend while at the
Texas Python Regional Unconference [1].
Gary
[1] http://pycamp.python
Gary Wilson wrote:
> Russell then added the comments:
> -
> My hesitation here (and the reason I didn't include a 'context assert' in the
> first place) is that assertContext does an Equals test, but doesn't provide a
> way to do any other assertion
TestCase?
itself rubs me the wrong way.
-
Gary
[1] http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5333
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, sen
mixture of #1 and #2 would be good, similar to how the
multi-db branch [1] defines multiple backends.
I guess if method #1 is used now, that code could still be used later on to
load multiple database backends from which ever settings format that is used.
Just thought I would mention it though.
to how the URLField was changed a while back [1]. IMO, this is the
sort of thing frameworks are good for; make the common things easy and the
not-so-common things possible. No matter how high we raise the default,
someone's always going to want/need more.
So count me as +1 for allowin
+321,6 @@
def has_key(self, name):
return self._attrs.has_key(name)
-def __contains__(self, name):
-return self._attrs.has_key(name)
-
def get(self, name, alternative=None):
return self._attrs.get(name, alternative)
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~
an issue involving the
archive_index view though because it also uses a num_latest parameter,
IMHO implying that the items will be sorted by date_field descending.
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gr
7;, author=None)
>>> Article.objects.filter(author=None)
[]
>>> Article.objects.filter(author__isnull=True)
[]
Also, the docs on the current behavior (added in
http://code.djangoproject.com/changeset/3902) seem to be incorrect.
The SQL getting executed when using "id__exact=No
ster new commands or replace/extend existing ones. In fact, just
the other day I was taking a look at how Bazaar does this with their
plugins. If interested, take a look at bzrlib/commands.py
http://bazaar-vcs.org/bzr/bzr.dev/bzrlib/commands.py
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~-
ne here,
as newforms is one of the newest chunks of Django. IMO newforms was
being pushed a little before it was ready. What was shipped in 0.96, I
say, was more of a preview of things to come as we only very recently
added support for a major form field that had been missing for several
months (
7;m +1 for the refactoring. The db introspection and creation modules
are in need of the same loving.
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group,
Gary Wilson wrote:
> I agree with all the points you make here, Brian. We revamped the
> ticket process a few months ago and I think any further changes is going
> to give us diminishing returns.
Oh, I forgot to mention something about possibly introducing a bug day.
It's alway
sort of setup would give us several things:
* Save some developer time by not having apply and test patches as much.
* Ensure that existing functionality is never broken, missing tests aside.
* Ensure that every code change has been reviewed by at least two core
developers.
I realize this woul
plugins for various template engines.
Gary
[1]
http://compoundthinking.com/blog/index.php/2007/03/05/merging-turbogears-and-pylons/
[2]
http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp/blog/2007/06/python_web_application_framewo.html
[3]
http://www.blueskyonmars.com/2007/06/27/turbogears-2-a-reinven
to test itself completely without any outside help.
This sort of thing would also be useful in case we ever wanted to do
some automated gate keeping of the checkins.
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
ch attached to
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/3896
some time ago.
Gary
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-develo
is not happening at all.
As mentioned in the comments of the ticket you mentioned above, there
are times when you do want to ensure the check box was checked
(required=True). When you do not want to force the user to check the
box, then you use required=False. I wouldn&
Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> This is a nice, clean approach -- good work! The patch is looking
> good. Go ahead and check it in at your leisure.
Checked in as http://code.djangoproject.com/changeset/5803
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are
1 - 100 of 318 matches
Mail list logo
